Posted
by
CmdrTacoon Monday November 08, 2004 @03:18PM
from the deploy-the-space-laser-cannons dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Guardian reports "America has begun preparing its next military objective - space. Documents reveal that the US Air Force has for the first time adopted a doctrine to establish 'space superiority'."
If this goes ahead, it will be in violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which forbids the militarization of space."

I'd like to point out that space
superiority does not necessarily mean
the militarization of space. Already,
the presence and testing of ICBMs
skirts the issue, and so, too would
many other technologies.

That's not that I agree that this
should be a direction we want to go,
I'm just pointing out that the treaty
isn't worth much. To me the millitary
objective of space is right in line with
the "Star Wars" ideas.

States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

I guess destroying some other nations satellite would not count as weapons of mass destruction. I think it's a crappy idea. I mean, sure we could use our nuclear arsenal to obliterate any nation that looks at us funny but we don't I don't think we need to start knocking other countries stuff out of the sky either.

Hmm- would my favortie space based weapon- guided 2-meter crowbars as a Weapon of Minimal Distruction- be legal then because it's specifically designed only for assasination inside of reinforced concrete bunkers?

Hmm- would my favortie space based weapon- guided 2-meter crowbars as a Weapon of Minimal Distruction- be legal then because it's specifically designed only for assasination inside of reinforced concrete bunkers?

Anything dropped from space has kinetic energy equivalent to about 15 times its weight in TNT, at most.

Your 2-meter crowbar will weigh maybe 30 lbs.

Is 500 lbs of TNT enough to crack a buried bunker designed to be safe from tactical nuclear weapons?

Oh, I don't know - guided 2 meter crowbars would make a handy anti-tank weopon. Clusters of them could be used as "artillery support" - I imagine it would be a very useful capability to be able to support a small airborne combat team ANYWHERE in the world with what amounts to heavy artillery. Make a nice force multiplier.

It would be kind of expensive to set up "orbital artillery", but then you'll be able to reload them from the winning vehicle of the American Space Prize competition, so it might not be s

OK then... How about if the British (or anyone else with the required steel foundry infrastructure) resurrected the Tallboy or Grand Slam bombs used in WW2? Put a few of these into space in orbits that give decent time-to-target, and all you have to do is de-orbit them at the right time. If you can drop them from low earth orbit, then you don't even need any explosive. A ten-ton half-molten ingot dropping on a concrete bunker at several times the speed of sound has got to hurt.

Is 500 lbs of TNT enough to crack a buried bunker designed to be safe from tactical nuclear weapons?

It likely is if it's a focused shaped charge to a single 1" circle....which is basically the entire idea of the crowbar-dropped-from-orbit idea.

I seriously doubt this, if the bunker is deep enough to resist conventional explosive attack (or tactical nuclear warheads). Remember, the 1/e velocity distance is the distance at which the penetrator has displaced an amount of material comparable to its own mass. That'd be at most 10-20 metres of earth for your crowbar. By comparison, the bunker would be on the order of 100 metres down.

The idea isn't to demolish the bunker, it's to kill a single person *despite* that person being in a bunker

This requires demolishing the bunker, as you don't know where they are inside it. If you have a spy in there, there are far cheaper ways of killing the target.

And I'm completely agreed with that idea- but NEITHER can fortified targets or conventional armies stop an attack from space. Multiply that crobar by thousands- even millions- of similar crowbars taking out *specific* ground based targets (of the command and communications variety) and your ground-based army gets one heck of a lot easier to defeat.

The problem is that it's ludicrously expensive to stock that much mass in space. You'd be better off carpet-bombing with napalm and raining down conventional missiles on hardened targets. Space weapons only make practical sense vs. missile-delivered weapons if they use very little mass per shot, as would be the case for anti-satellite weapons or perhaps very energetic particle beam weapons (which are too expensive to lift with chemical rockets).

A very cheap launch technology, like a space elevator, would change all of this, but as long as we're stuck with conventional launch techniques, space is only useful for surveillance and for anti-space weapons.

Without that capability, what would you do if a hostile nation launched placed such weapons in orbit?

Yes, and that explaines it all, right ? Such weapons shall be deployed just-in-case ? This just smells as the cold war.

To me this seems again the same story as when Uncle Sam objected on E.U.&co. deploying their own GPS system too, stating that would provide U.S.'s possible enemies with possible unwanted tactical advantage in case of war.

Actually, space is already militarized. It's just not *weaponized*, which is a quite different thing.

Militarization in it's most basic form just means using for military purposes, like intel satellites. Almost from the get-go, space has been militarized in this manner. In fact, one reason that we were slow in launching a satellite is to let the Soviets establish the practise of satellite overflights of other countries.

Weaponization means positioning weapons in space - something that is not forbidden eithe

What this could lead to is some sort of "space terrorism". Imagine if someone launched a conventional bomb into space packed with a couple of hundred thousand small steel ball bearings, and detonated it... hell, what if they sent 20 of them up? Millions of lethal (to anything in orbit) weapons effectively stopping *any* space exploration for the foreseeable future.

Its certainly not outside the reach of governments such as china, india or pakistan. What would these people be willing to do in order to protect themselves from American weapons?

My immediate guess is that the vast majority, if not all of these balls would fall out of orbit and either burn up in the atmosphere or fling out into space, depending on which direction they leave the bomb...

Imagine if someone launched a conventional bomb into space packed with a couple of hundred thousand small steel ball bearings, and detonated it

This scenario has been well studied. You are overlooking a tactic that makes it a million times worse. That detonation you suggest really doesn't get the ball bearings moving very fast, and to the extent you do give them that random velocity you are putting them into almost useless elliptical orbits. Almost half will be kicked down into an orbit that burns them up in the atmosphere, with the other half get kicked up and then fall back down into the atmosphere.

No, the nasty way to do it is to boost it into orbit and keep going - you swing it around the moon. You then come back into earth orbit - but going in the OPPOSITE direction. And forget the ball bearings, just go with sand or small gravel. Now you gently scatter it. You now have all that shrapnal stable and parked in the target orbit, gently dispersing. They just sit there in that orbit going in the opposite direction. Any satallite in that orbit gets hit HEAD-ON at DOUBLE ORBITAL VELOCITY.

You could easily wipe out the crucial geostationary orbit belt this way. The whole region would be completely unsable for decades or centuries.

... and destroying what satellites would have helped in the "War Against Terror" or the invasion of Iraq?

This is another example of the military trickle-down economy. Pump billions into defense, justify it with fear ("The enemy is everywhere"), then some of that cash will flow down to the national economy.

Oh, it's in violation of a treaty? I'm sure the Bush Administration will back off
immediately once they find that out given their consistant respect for international law
and unwavering dedication to peace in our time.

Seriously, though: Space was never any different than all the other areas that
man has adapted to -- sooner or later it was always going to be used to fight wars.
That shouldn't be vaguely shocking to anyone. People settle their disputes by killing
each other (or, more accurately, sending 18 year olds as proxies to kill each other).

Peace doesn't come from treaties. It comes from the realization that war itself is almost
never worth fighting.

"Oh, it's in violation of a treaty? I'm sure the Bush Administration will back off immediately once they find that out given their consistant respect for international law and unwavering dedication to peace in our time."

No kidding. Let's see...

Treaties revoked by George W. Bush.

The biodiversity Treaty

The Geneva Conventions

The Forest Protection Treaty

The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

1972 Anti-Ballistic Missle Treaty

The 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention

The 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination agains Women

The UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

The Chemical Weapons Convention

The International Criminal Court (Nicaragua anyone?)

We rule by force, and screw anyone who tries to tell us differenet. It's the new American paradigm, and it's beyond ludicrous. PreVENTIVE war, screw treaties and international law, screw any moral high ground we may have had in the past. Welcome to our nightmare...

You don't seem to have mentioned just what treaty you're quoting from, so I'm going to assume that it's the outer space weapons treaty.

What extraordinary events do you refer to?

As to the other treaties...did we agree to them, or not? Did we violate them, or not?

I'm sorry, but in my perception the current administration adheres to such treaties as it finds convenient, using them as an excuse to override inconvenient laws, and wantonly ignores such treaties as it finds inconvenient. Labelling the particu

Guess what? You have no constitutional rights outside US borders, buddy. You have no right to bear arms in my country. You have no right to free speech in my country. You have no right against arbitrary arrest in my country. EXCEPT insofar as the laws of my country give them to you! So if US soldiers commit a war crime in a distant land, they have no constitutional protection at all, until they return to the US. That's why the US negotiates status-of-forces agreements [globalsecurity.org] with countries where their troops are stationed or deployed - this gives their soldiers additional legal safeguards that foreigners in that country would otherwise lack. Once back in the US, sure, the constitution applies. But then, under the ICC treaty, the US always has the option of prosecuting the alleged war criminals itself.

The president would have been in gross violation of his oath of office to have allowed US citizens to be prosecuted by a non-US court.

OK, please quote which section of the consitution, or the President's oath of office if you like, prohibits US citizens from being prosecuted by a non-US court. Again, sorry to disappoint you, but it happens all the time - it's a basic tenet of international law. Why else would the US have extradition treaties with other countries (for example, the US-UK Extradition Treaty [state.gov], which "Obligates each State to extradite to the other, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, persons sought by the authorities in the Requesting State for trial or punishment for extraditable offenses")?

If you don't like the ICC, fine. But at least get your facts straight before you criticise it. And, while you're at it, stop treating the US constitution like some sort of magic piece of paper that has universal powers. It doesn't.

Peace doesn't come from treaties. It comes from the realization that war itself is almost never worth fighting.

It works the other way as well: treaties often come from the realization (usually after a horrible war) that war itself is not worth fighting. The problem is that we forget the lessons of past wars, and the consensus that made the treaty possible dissapears. And another generation gives war a try.

I wish that the Terrorists believed that war wasn't worth fighting. I also wish that they didn't believe that killing innocents was the best way to further their cause.

I wish the US hadn't done such stupid things to get people so angry at us that they feel their only recourse is to blow up buildings. Do you honestly believe the US never kills "innocents"? Do you buy the whole "War on Terror" rhetoric, as if we can wage war on a word?

Counterterrorism efforts are certainly worthwhile, but to imagine that our best response to terrorist attacks was to launch a $6.7 billion a month war in a country that had nothing to do with any terrorist attacks is insanity. I'd rather have seen such funds thrown at rebuilding the WTC towers as an illustration that the terror tactics didn't work.

You do realize that by having a fearful -- nay, terrified -- reaction to these kinds of attacks, we are contributing to their success?

I am sure Zarquawi would be a pig farmer had we not done anything, but well, he is a full bloomed terrorist now, and we are fighting him THERE, not here.

Maybe your idea of "standing tall" includes doing nothing, or maybe sending a few tomahawk missiles as a response (that did nothing, but also "attacked innocents" according to the rest of the world), but real men's idea are linked directly with fighting for what is right.

(No, those people are not protected by the Geneva Convention.)
Why the fuck not? They were captured by the other side in a war, which to my mind makes them pretty likely to be PoWs. At the very least they were entitled to a public hearing to decide whether they were protected by the Geneva Convention which, so far, none of them have had.

Why not? If the government sent them to war and allowed them to die for the wrong reasons, then, yes, we should admit that their sacrifice was for the wrong reasons and then proceed to *change the government*. Blindly agreeing with the war because you're afraid of "[cheapening] their sacrifice" is nothing but weak-mindedness, not unlike being against protesting the war because you feel the need to "support the troops".

And, back to the main point, while you may believe that "many of them are quite proud",

States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.

Note: No nukes, no 'WMDs' in orbit, and no weapons on pre-existing celestial bodies. Sticking more conventional arms into orbit is A-OK by this agreement.

Something else of note... this indicates that the celestial bodies are restricted in use to States Parties. Exactly where do "independent contractors" (today's political phrase for "mercenaries") fit into that? Could the US government just contract out the militarization of the moon to Haliburton and still be, legally, in the clear on this treaty?

I think simply asserting that they can't is an oversimplification. They also can't hold foreign citizens taken during a military conflict indefinitely and without recourse because that would violate treaties relating to POW's. But they do, because if they don't call them POW's then the rule doesn't apply. Would the government not use the same logic to justify circumventing the treaty, while at the same time enforcing it for other countries?

A more descriptive article about this can be found here [state.gov]. I found this portion to be most interesting...

The substance of the arms control provisions is in Article IV. This article restricts activities in two ways:

First, it contains an undertaking not to place in orbit around the Earth, install on the moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise station in outer space, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction.

Where in the mentioned article does it indicate that the new weapons will be nuclear (or WMDs)? This sounds (mostly) legal to me.

Conventional bombs, chemical weapons, and biological weapons do not destroy mass. Nuclear weapons generate their explosive energy from the destruction of mass due to nuclear fission. Thus, only nukes are truly weapons of mass destruction.

Basically, they have nothing in common except shooting something upwards. ICBMs are on a parabola path - that is to say, they start on Earth, arch, and then come right back down. It is a very, very quick process - a full-blown nuclear war need only take half an hour.

The targets are very small (relative to an Earth-killing celestial object), intentionally spoofing your radar, and very, very close to the target (again, relatively). The good news is, they're packed with explosives, and since they're so close, a laser defense system could at least conceivably work. The Israelis supposedly have something working that could handle tasks somewhat like this (Arrow II?).

Compare this to a meteor. Meteors (that we would worry about) are very large compared to an ICBM. They're moving really fast, yes, but with an active detection system, we would probably have a couple years of notice. What's _best_ is that the meteor would be moving on a relatively stable and straight path, and we only need to deflect it - if we knock it off course a year out, it's a non-problem. Blowing the thing to meteor bits is overkill.

This is not quite as easy as it sounds, but I think it's doable with today's technology.

So, really, they are two separate problems. ICBM defense requires a highly accurate system that can engage many, many small targets at close range. Meteor defense requires a system which can engage a single, huge target at massive distances.

What a load of crap. This is siting the Airforce saying they want to disable enemy satelites and a bit of MDA funding as proof we're going to put weapons into space?

First, you don't have to have a weapon in space to disable a satelite. Hell, last week it was either here or on fark that there was an article about non-perminant disabling of satelites using RF energy.

And the MDA funding? 7.4million is NOTHING. They gave 8 million to fund a program to improve the software aquisition process. Thats not 8 mil to build software. its not 8 mil to improve building software. Its not even 8 mil to pay the people who buy the software. Its 8 mil to improve HOW we buy the software. 7.4 million at the MDA means they are paying to see if the current state of technology supports TRYING to build it. 7.4 million isn't even enough to start drawing concept designs.

And lets face it, if the US realizes this is important, we can assume Russia, China, India, etc do to.

And what the hell does the US putting interceptors at Fylingdales have to do with anything? They're ground based intercepters. I didn't realize the US had even picked a eastern basing site. The US does something nice like offer to cover your country from missile attacks, and the media twists it into some sort of "the US is making us put weapons in space" bs. Iran is working their ass off to get long range missiles. If you want to depend on the idea that they won't attack you because they don't want to be attacked, thats fine, but considering Iran's support of the war in Iraq, (and not our side of it), I wouldn't trust them not to 'lose' a shahab 3 and then lightly condemn the terrorists who launched it on some western base in europe.

There has been this thing called "Space Command" in the Air Force for a long time now. There has even been talk of branching the space forces from the Air Force for a long while - like over ten years or so?

Space-based assets are simultaneously very valuable and very vulnerable. In a tense international standoff (Cuban Missile Crisis style) they inject a strong "use it or lose it" incentive to go for a first strike. On balance, this is probably not a plus.

Nothing can really stop a dirty bomb from going off in Manhattan. There are bigger threats out there though, a dirty bomb in Manhattan might wipe out a few buildings and throw some fallout around. The number of people that would be killed would be fairly low. A ICBM in the wrong hands however could kill millions.

It appears the treaty only excludes nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction from being put into space or on any celestial bodies. According to the Guardian article (why do people take this rag seriously?) the US Air Force is looking to deploy a few small spacecraft, likely highly maneuverable satellites, that can destroy surface to surface missiles, enemy aircraft, and enemy satellites which may be used for surevillance or other tasks which offer an advantage on the battlefield. I'd wager these are laser based weapons and do not violate the treaty as they are neither nuclear nor weapons of mass destruction.

When you can't even fly to your space station on your own. It's time for Russians to renew their anti-satellite program. Yeah, the one that they've developed back in the "Star Wars" day to shoot satellites down using a high-intensity military laser sitting on the ground.

This reminds me of that joke about NASA developing a ball pen that would function in the state of weightlessnes. Three years and a hundred million dollars later they've developed such a pen. In the meanwhile Russians used pencils.

>This reminds me of that joke about NASA developing a ball pen that would function in the state of weightlessnes. Three years and a hundred million dollars later they've developed >such a pen. In the meanwhile Russians used pencils.

The Project for the New American Century [newamericancentury.org] - a neoconservative thinktank established in the '90s - published a document in 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which advocates preemption with an emphasis on the militarization of space. You can read it here [newamericancentury.org].

The people who've signed off at the bottom of this madness are the principle figures in George W. Bush's administration: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et. al. as shown on this page [newamericancentury.org].

A quick, cursory reading of the treaty [state.gov] referenced by the poster will show that there is no banning of such a space-based missile defense system. In fact, the claim that the militarization of space is forbidden is not grounded in fact.

The treaty bans the following:

Space-based nuclear weapons

Space-based weapons of mass destruction

That's it. It does not ban a State that is a Party to the treaty (member state) from placing weaponry in orbit to shoot down incoming ICBMs. It does not ban a member state from proactively destroying the satellites of another state, esp. when the destroying state is under attack by the state owning the targeted material.

Certainly, space-based systems designed to provide a member state with defense against incoming weapons of mass destruction do not themselves qualify as weapons of mass destruction. Similarly, as long as the weapons to not contain nuclear warheads, they are not in violation of this treaty.

Following are few places in the treaty where weapons are mentioned.

Preamble: Recalling resolution 1884 (XVIII), calling upon States to refrain from placing in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction or from installing such weapons on celestial bodies . ..

Article IV: . . . not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space . ..

Article IV: The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used . . . exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden.

As can be plainly seen, none of these items ban the installation of conventional defensive weaponry in space. The treaty explicitly deals with installation of nuclear weapons and offensive weapons of mass destruction, as well as using the moon or other celestial bodies for military bases, installations, or fortifications, or for the conducting of military maneuvers.

The Guardian is certainly a biased paper. Give it credit though, it doesn't hide it. I don't like it, or read it, but I do respect the quality of writing.

In truth though, is attempting to influence the result of an election in another country wrong? If the Washington Post was to print a series of anti Blair articles in the run up to the UK elections, would that be wrong? I can't see how...

Assasination - fair enough - stupid thing to print - shoddy editorial staff for not picking it up before it went to press.

> The Guardian is certainly a biased paper. Give it credit though, it doesn't hide it.

You give them credit for this why? Journalism should have NO BIAS. Only objective reporting of the facts. That is the expectation the public should have from journalists, unless they are specifically looking for opinion, in which case they can turn to the editorial section.

A newspaper with any credibility will have no bias whatsoever and will take pains to make sure that no subjective editorial opinion does not appea

Well, actually in the beginning of the 80's , when Reagan's Star Wars initiative started to be discussed, Russian leading missile engineer offered even cheaper solution - load Progress cargo craft with a nuts and bolts and other small metal objects (Progress can take a few tons up there), put it in the high orbit and explode - in a few hours all orbiting gear will be pierced and perfectly malfunctioning.

I think the whole "if someone tries to advance it's economy / technology / society it's a danger to us"-thinking pretty dangerious and provoking which you imply relating to the subject. In that line of thinking, the world has the right to assume the US has as only motivation world-domination and should be controlled and sumitted - or it should be globally accepted and enforced to do so.

In that line of thinking, the world has the right to assume the US has as only motivation world-domination and should be controlled and sumitted - or it should be globally accepted and enforced to do so.

No one needs to assume that, the historical record bears it out well. Maintaining hegemony is the #1 American priority, over all else.

If we don't militarily dominate space, how will we be able to ensure our right to force global warming on the rest of the planet?!
This is a must. We need nukes up there like yesterday. I shit you not my fellow christian white Americans. This is a matter of supreme national security.

I think it would be cool if Britian became leader of the world again. England was really good when we had an empire, and now we have a little weedy country.
So what we (UK) need to is reclaim all our colonies, The America's included, retake Europe, bring Queen Victoria back to life, conquer China (We need the tea) and use the sum of the worlds technology to lead it into a new era of space exploration... Hell, we could even shove all the criminals on some barren planet like mars, just like the good old days...

Most corporate FUD is actually lies and smokescreen, intended to promote the other corporation. Most people who talk about the government in a less-than-flattering way do so because there is copious evidence that the current government is not trustworthy, does not have the interest of its people at heart, is in bed with corporate and militaristic interests, and would like nothing more than to rape our natural resources and leave the wilderness ravaged.

Now, what does someone like, say, me, gain or benefit when I talk about how bad the current administration is? Do I do so because I want political power, because I want to be president? Because I want to have the free world at my beck and call. Well, maybe. But be that as it may, the real reason is because unlike Bush, I believe in the existence of a little thing called the Future. And the future won't exist without reasoned and careful behavior. Currently, the administration is pretty reckless, I'd say, stretching resources thin, going deep into debt while trying to permanently reduce future revenues.

These don't seem like reasonable steps to me.

Any corporation that did the things that the government has been doing for the past four years would have been tossed on its collective ass by its investors a few years ago. And who are the investors in this metaphor? Well, they're, uh, us, the voters/taxpayers. Only this year, a lot of people decided that it was more important to pay attention to the PR department than what was happening with the financials, and more interested in the CEO's personality than in the overall company's statement of purpose [newamericancentury.org].

Note that right now the militarization of space has been well on the way, in some sense with GPS (guiding precision weapon strikes) and spy satellites (target location/identification/tracking) and other such 'non WMD' uses of space.

Controlling the 'high ground' has always had advantages in intelligence and planning, and in this case, earth orbit has some profound advantages for seeing what other people are doing. And of course, if you can see what they are doing militarily, you can also spot annoying things they might not like brought up like mass graves, environmental catastrophes, prison camps, army buildups, etc. And you can take a good look at what kind of industrial facilities they are running or setting up. Even with a strictly corporate intelligence perspective, this knowledge is quite valuable (given some inherent ability to interpret the satellite photos with efficacy).

Space was destined to be weaponized the minute it became important to the resource bases or security of major countries. It now is starting to be, hence the trend. Any 'treaties' to block this were conveniences of the moment or dreams and naive ones I suspect. Of course, everyone who isn't in a position to either have a major world interest to defend or the power and technology and money to defend that interest can sit back and complain about how they don't want militarization (obviously they don't since they can't play) or how they'd never do it (unless of course they had the ability to do so, but that's never said).

Besides, on a humorous note, we'll need those weapons when the nasty landmark destroying aliens arrive and they prove resistant to country music, the common cold, and are not Mac-compatible.:)

"The Guardian" didn't call for the assassination of the President of the United States. In order to properly say that, such a call to action would have to appear as an unattributed editorial on their editorial page, thus representing the views of the editorial staff.

Instead, according to the very article you link to, it was a tasteless joke by one writer, in an article that appeared in the TV listings.

I included my adress to them, but no answer. I guess I was ignored. Oh well.

Perhaps you shouldn't have used this paragraph as your introduction:

I REPRESENT MOHAMMED ABACHA, SON OF THE LATE GEN. SANI ABACHA, WHOWAS THE FORMER MILITARY HEAD OF STATE IN NIGERIA. HE DIED IN 1998. SINCEHIS DEATH, THE FAMILY HAS BEEN LOOSING A LOT OF MONEY DUE TO VINDICTIVEGOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

On Election Day, we learned just how much the British meddling hurt the Democrats. In 2000, Al Gore had won Clark County by 324 votes; his margin would have been larger absent Ralph Nader's 1,347 votes the same day. But this year, Clark County threw itself into electoral reverse. Of the 115 Ohio counties that Al Gore won in 2000, John Kerry won every single one -- with the conspicuous exception of Clark, which went to Bush this year by 1,620 votes.

The source is OpinionJournal's Political Diary. Thanks for helping George Bush. I'm sure he'll thank you.

Well... Then may be he deserved to win it. Basically you are saying that all of the so called undecided voters suffered from rabid xenophobia and acute isolationism and reacted to letters from a foreigner by running to support the exact opposite candidate. Well, frankly that is Bush electorate by definition. So the Guardian did not have to do anything with it.

If anyone had to something with Bush winning, it was Bin Laden. He wants the American and the British to continue alienating the islamic world until all of it is at war against them. He got what he wanted. There was a lot of banter on Slashdot about him influencing the Spanish elections. Well... dunno about Spain, but he definitely got what he wanted in the US. That tape several days before the election was the most brilliant propaganda move in the Bush campaing. At the right time to make everyone scared and not giving enough time to get the White House to answer WTF is it doing in Iraq when enemy no 1 is still alive and kicking elsewhere. In fact if Bin Laden did not make the tape the Bush camp would have had to fake it. Or may be they did???

Theres seems ot be a general gross over estimation of the importance of the islamic world. Their numerous but don't have the political or military might to kick the US out of Saudi arabai (and their holliest of cities). Thei'r not unified, not organized, and would get their ass handed to them by a force 1/20 as large as the US (see isreal). When the oil runs out in 40 years, no one will care about the middle east. It'll be like africa. They coudl all starve and no one care. Isreal coudl wipe out palastien a

What puzzles me is why the US didn't pick a strong, smart and militarish guy like Clarke.

Clarke got in the game a little late. But yes, Clarke would have stood a better chance than Kerry I'd imagine. Clarke had some baggage but they could be handled.

If I ran the Democrat party I would have put Clarke and Lieberman on a ticket and beaten Bush silly. Clarke had the military background and be able to hammer Bush on Vietnam service and his experience with Kosovo. Lieberman would have appealed to the religiou

I included my adress to them, but no answer. I guess I was ignored. Oh well.

Oh, I don't know about that. Considering that Bush's margin of victory in 2004 was five times larger than Al Gore's in 2000, perhaps they heard you loud and clear. In which case, let me say thanks to all the readers of the Guardian, particularly those who took the time to write, for doing your part to insure W's re-election...

Yup, Europeans like me. I wrote to three persons in Clark county, Ohio and explained them who this election affects much, much more than themselves and why Bush is a bad republican. There are good republicans and bad ones, you know. I included my adress to them, but no answer. I guess I was ignored. Oh well.

I'm going to guess that despite your intentions, you actually inspired them to vote for Bush.

Think about it: a bunch of people already wary of terrorism get letters from another country urging them

The Guardian miscalculated the (U.S. of) American feelings of patriotism, xenophobia, parochialism, isolationism, desire for independence, distrust of Europe, and the resentment that would be rekindled by even a single letter like the one you sent. There's a sizable segment of our population which doesn't even want the U.S. to be a U.N. member.

No matter how well you stated your case, the fact that it was a non-American saying it would cause most people here to summarily dismiss it. The fact that it was a

I think Cobra did in one of the GI Joe cartoons. But then again, Cobra was as smart as bin Laden's terrorist organization- their overriding concern in choosing bases was neat ways to hide airports in hugely out-of-the-way locations where they wouldn't be bothered.

... nor easy to be bombed there.:) But the point is that China *does* do scientific research, and so it is unreasonable to expect them not to do it in space.

I'll never understand the people who treat China as if it's this big military power eager to invade the US. The US spends ~400 billion dollars per year on the military. China, with an economy half the size of the US's (and gaining fast), spends ~10 billion dollars.

The nation doing a huge military buildup is the US, not China. China's forces just scream defensive, from their tiny number of nuclear weapons (20 DF-6's) and deployment strategies, to their overall budget.

The United States has set precedent in cases similar to Taiwan and China. China has every right to retake this "state in open rebellion". Much like a Lincoln-led United States did with certain "states in open rebellion" over a century ago.

Well, sure - let's grant that precedent. Would it not then be Taiwan who has a right to retake mainland China? After all, the current Taiwanese government is the antecedent of the original (pre-1949) Republic of China. The People's Republic is the portion that seceded. It just happens to be much larger, and if unaided, Taiwan would not be able to win a war - but in terms of precedent (if accepted), it's still Taiwan that has the right to reinvade China, not the other way around.

China has every right to retake this "state in open rebellion". Much
like a Lincoln-led United States did with certain "states in open
rebellion" over a century ago.

Perhaps it would be even more instructive to look to China's own history. For
thousands of years, the Dynastic cycle has gone as follows: A new, strong
government comes to power after defeating the previous incumbents, due to
the ineptitude and corruption in the previous government, and also the
strategic genius and perhaps popular support of the leaders of the new one.
Then time passes, and the inheritors of that power become complacent and
lazy, until a new force comes along to repeat the cycle.

The revolution that threw out the last official Emperor was one such
event; the Communist revolution was the next.

Taiwan just hasn't caught up with the times yet.:)

Though seriously, it makes sense for Taiwan to eventually reunify with
China, for both their benefits. But it's also definitely in Taiwan's interest
to delay this, until China's government becomes sufficiently democratic,
or at least can be trusted not to dick around with them too much. Both such processes -- democratization and renunification -- must be
allowed to happen in their own good time. And it's best for the U.S. to stay out of it, except to use its influence on Taiwan to keep the situation calm.

If you're wondering about why, even though I maintain it's inevitable, China shouldn't be in any special hurry for democratization -- just look at the recent U.S. election results, and remember a few things about China: (1) They have 800 million "country folk", with little awareness of the outside world, who would easily be swayed by a charismatic leader, no matter the agenda; and (2) they have a demonstrated capability of succumbing to nationwide madness (i.e. the Cultural Revolution). The Communist Party aren't the only ones in China who are afraid to rock the boat.

Don't forget Real Genius [imdb.com] with the huge, frickin' hotter-than-the-sun laser that could disintegrate a single human from space or, even more frighteningly, overcome a two-story home with a giant container of Jiffy Pop popcorn!

Bush: Alright, how's the ladder going, General? Are we beating the Japanese?General: Not quite, but we have a new problem, Mr. President. Our recon team on the ladder just found new evidence of threats... from Saddam Hussein.Bush: Saddam Hussein? But... we killed him! We secretly took him out months ago!General: Yes sir. And now we believe he's building weapons of mass destruction... in heaven.

RTFA. The treaty outlaws Nuclear weapons and WMDs. So long as anything we put up there does not fall under either of those two categories we are still within the treaty. By the way, since the USSR is the only other signatory of that treaty, and they are no longer around, does that mean it is still valid?

Like, I'm pretty sure that you should totally let us know what treaty you're talking about, OK? I don't remember an International Don't-Put-Weapons-On-Drones Treaty, but who knows, it's so complicated, ya know?

"THE TEST OF a weaponized UAV took place only after the US State Department lifted its objections because of concerns that a "weaponized" Predator could breach the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty signed in 1987 by the United States and the former Soviet Union.

Officials were concerned a Predator carrying a laser-guided Hellfire could be classified as a ground-launch cruise missile, which is restricted by the treaty. The State Department official was also worried that demonstrating Predator's ability to launch a Hellfire would worry the governments of Russia and European allies, which could host the platform in the future. Inside The Air Force first reported on the issue Dec. 8, 2000."

I said I'm "pretty" sure because multiple high level organazations were concerned about the legality but proceeded anyway. What changed to ease their concerns? It is not that the Predator became less deadly. I would suggest the War on Terror gave them additional leeway.